It
began as a bit of a joke, a modest attempt at political satire spawned
during an inane session of late night creativity. Then the New York Times
ran a story about it.

The
now infamous logo was created for the Information Awareness Office (IAO)
of the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
The IAO is responsible for a controversial project at the Pentagon called
Total Information Awareness. The project plans to analyze a universe of
corporate databases (e.g. credit cards) and government records in quest
of bad guys.

While
finding bad guys isn't a bad idea many people have concerns that efforts
such as this will invade our privacy and erode our civil liberties. Opposition
to the Total Information Awareness project cuts across the political spectrum,
from the ACLU to ultra-conservative politicians like Dick Armey. Further,
the project is headed by none other than John Poindexter -- the Reagan
administration Iran Contra participant who was convicted* of lying to
Congress.

In early January, the IAO launched a website with their newly designed
logo complete with the Latin motto "scientia est potentia" (knowledge
is power). The creepy design and its disturbing symbology generated a
torrent of criticism, and a few days later the logo was withdrawn. However,
visitors to the website had already saved the logo and made it available
on other websites. After some joking with friends I spent an hour late
one night creating a t-shirt for Poindexter and his team. My enthusiasm
got a bit out of hand and I added a few more products. Just couldn't help
myself. With that the Total Information Awareness Gift Shop was born:
www.cafepress.com/totalawareness.

That night, I sent a half dozen emails to a few friends. Within three
days $1000 of shirts, mugs, thongs, greeting cards, and other fine products
were sold. It also generated $200 in profit which I had pledged to the
ACLU. What a kick.

Then
the Times called. I was bit leery going public with this. That had never
been my intent. However, my youngest daughter is 15 years old, keenly
political, and journalistically oriented. She thought this was about the
coolest thing her dad had ever done. How could I tell her I didn't have
the courage to make such a modest political statement? How could I tell
her there might be some risk to making jokes about government surveillance
projects in these troubled times? Couldn't. Didn't.

The New York Times piece ran in the business section on February 10, 2003.
It can be accessed online
or you can view an image of the article below.

Who's
getting the profits from this vastly successful enterprise?

All
proceeds from the TIA Gift Shop beyond the base cost of each product will
go to the American Civil Liberties Foundation of the ACLU. The store has
grossed more than $80,000 and generated approximately $20,000 for the ACLU.

What
are the hot products?

Shirts
and mugs top the list. But thongs are very popular and account for nearly
ten percent of units sold. My daughter now refers to me as "the thong
merchant for civil liberties." My family is very proud.

What's
so bad about Total Information Awareness? There are a lot of bad guys out
there.

Now don't
go getting serious on me. But it's a fair question. And it's also fair
to expect the government to do all it can to find those bad guys. But,
we need to do it in a way that doesn't destroy the very liberties we are
trying to defend. Should the government be able to search records and
databases to track down bad guys? Within reason, yes. With proper safeguards
and oversight, yes. Should they be able to broadly scan the private information
of law-abiding US citizens in an ongoing quest for bad guys? No.

One of the
few things I still remember from college was a quote from some wise British
lord by the name of Acton: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Programs like Total Information Awareness will be abused.
It's only a question of how badly and how frequently.

What
has the Information Awareness Office in the Defense Department said or done
about this?

According
to the New York Times, Jan Walker, a spokesman for the IAO said "her
bosses were aware of Mr. Gingras's efforts, 'but I don't think it's something
that warrants comment from the government.'"

Of course,
I'm a bit curious as to how the IAO was aware of my efforts. Maybe they
are very very good at doing what they say they are not doing: spying on
US citizens. Or, the New York Times reporter gave them the gift shop URL
before Jan Walker's interview so that the IAO could look at it beforehand.
I believe it's the latter but feel free to draw your own paranoid conclusions.

The IAO has
also released a statement on its website about the logo, its origins,
and their decision to withdraw it from use. The statement is question
15 in the IAO Frequently Asked Questions document dated February, 2003
which can be accessed here in PDF format http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIA_FAQs.pdf
or you can read just the text of question 15 by clicking here.

On
Monday, February 10, 2003 the New York Times ran this piece by David Gallagher
on page C4 of the business section.

I've
concluded that the true accomplishment of this accidental affair was
to get the venerable New York Times to run an edtiorial news photo of
an article of intimate apparel -- specifically, a thong! Not a photo
with a model or an actress in the fashion or entertainment sections.
A news photo! I believe it's a first in the paper's long history. Please
don't correct me if I'm wrong.

On
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, the Washington Post ran this item in Lloyd Grove's
Reliable Source column on page C3 of the metro section.

Even
scarier than the Total Information Awareness project is Pat Buchanan's
pledge to model the thong. Please, Pat, don't!

We
hear rumors that Monica Lewinsky has agreed to be the spokesperson for
the TIA Gift Shop. True?

Basement?
I live in California, land of no basements. The answer is CafePress. They
are the guys behind the retail curtain. Awesome site. One of the web's
finest innovations. 'Nuff said. Go try it.

Did
anyone else help you with this?

Yes,
there were a number of fine folks who provided guidance, some legal advice,
and batches of encouragement mixed with verbal abuse. They prefer to remain
in the background and I've agreed to respect their privacy. They know
who they are, I appreciate their efforts, and I keep them in line by reminding
them that I know the full details of their gift shop purchase histories.

*
While Poindexter's conviction was reversed on appeal, it was reversed
on the basis that he couldn't be prosecuted for lying to Congress because
Congress had given him immunity in exchange for his testimony. So, get
this: Congress gives him immunity so he'll be free to tell the whole
truth but he then lies and effectively uses the immunity to defend his
lies. Trustworthy guy? You decide.